Final Tier 1 Environmental Impact Statement 6-1

6 Cost Analysis

This chapter presents estimates for capital costs and operating and maintenance costs for the 

APRCS. The cost estimates are based on the information gathered in the course of developing 

and analyzing the companion AA. The cost estimate reflects a level of understanding 

commensurate with the conceptual engineering work performed to date. The figures will be 

updated and refined as the study advances to the development phase and a Tier 2 NEPA 

document is prepared.

This analysis presents only the capital and operating costs of the project. There is not yet an 

identified source of funding or a schedule for construction with which to define a financing 

plan.

6.1 Cost Estimate Methodology

Cost estimates were developed based upon the general alignment for the Yellow and the 

Orange corridor alternatives. For the purposes of this cost analysis, it is assumed that the 

Yellow Corridor Alternative is within or along ADOT or UP ROW, and the Orange Corridor 

Alternative would be located within ADOT or other private or public ROW. Costs may change 

depending on the eventual project-specific alignment. The generic passenger rail technology

upon which estimates were based was a diesel multiple unit capable of higher-speed rail (up to 

125 mph).

Capital cost estimates for a passenger rail system were prepared consistent with the level of 

detail available for the proposed alternative. The calculations took into consideration 

construction costs and annual operating and maintenance costs based upon the assumed 

intercity and commuter rail operating plan presented in Chapter 4 – Transportation Impacts. 

The capital cost estimates are presented in current year US dollars and were developed for 

opening year, horizon year (2035), and long-range future. The estimates were prepared using 

standardized costs based on current railroad industry unit prices. The estimated cost for 

intercity and commuter rail stations, train equipment, and yard and maintenance facilities are 

also included in the capital cost estimate at a program level. 

The annual intercity and commuter rail operating and maintenance cost estimates are based 

upon current, similar rail operations located in the western US.

6.1.1 Capital Cost Methodology

For this Tier 1 EIS, the cost analysis is at a high level, but is built upon the specific corridor 

context using the most appropriate information available. The following assumptions were 

made for the development of the rail capital and operating cost estimates for the APRCS:
6 Cost Analysis

Final Tier 1 Environmental Impact Statement 6-2

 Average speeds for local and express service for planning purposes were used for each 

service level to calculate fleet size. A total of 40 minutes (20 minutes at each terminal) 

for trains is allocated for terminal turn-back time. One spare commuter train and one 

spare intercity train would be provided.

 Double track costs are estimated for all elevated segments and at-grade segments at 

locations where trains moving in opposite directions need a second track to pass. 

Rights-of-way to accommodate double track are assumed along the entire corridor.

 Train sets would consist of diesel multiple units with four vehicles for commuter train 

sets and eight vehicles for intercity train sets.

 Bridges, such as those across canals, streets, and some washes, are assumed to be 

200 feet or less in length. Some bridges across freeways, washes, and wide roadways 

are assumed to be between 200 feet and 300 feet in length. Major bridges are 

estimated on a cost per linear foot basis.

 Universal crossovers consist of four turnouts arranged in sets of two to form single 

crossovers in opposite directions. Crossovers will allow trains to cross from one track to 

another and are located at terminal stations, connections to servicing and maintenance 

facilities, and at intermediate locations will allow trains to operate over only one track in 

the event of maintenance or a problem occurring on the other track. It is assumed that 

crossovers will be spaced 5 miles to 10 miles apart.

 At-grade highway/railroad crossings will be rebuilt for higher train speeds and multiple 

tracks in accordance with federal and state regulations. Each at-grade crossing will be 

equipped with medians and quadrant gates (to prevent motorists from driving around 

the gates), constant warning predictors, concrete panel crossing surfaces, and all 

required signage and graphics.

 Construction will use the existing I-10 westbound frontage road from Grant Road to 

Eloy. Property acquisition or additional access will be required for properties affected by 

loss of access from the frontage road. Reconstruction of the Red Rock traffic 

interchange and Missile Base Road will be required, as well as new roadways providing 

access to the proposed Park Link Drive and Arizona Public Service power plant access 

road. Ina Road and Ruthrauff Road are currently being designed to accommodate a 

passenger rail alignment. 

 Positive and centralized train control costs consist of cab signaling and automatic train 

protection and supervision.
6 Cost Analysis

Final Tier 1 Environmental Impact Statement 6-3

 Passenger stations will consist of system hub stations located at terminals, regional 

stations at key junction points, and local stations located along the system. Local 

stations located in freeway rights-of-way will include pedestrian crossings and 

stairs/elevators for passenger access.

 Unit costs are based upon experience and industry source articles. Costs have been 

rounded up after allowing for inflation. 

 A planning level contingency of 40 percent has been added to the construction cost.

 Preliminary ROW costs reflect anticipated expenditures for potential acquisitions based 

on a general understanding of underlying property impacts and ownership.

 Estimate includes construction of support facilities including a single maintenance and 

storage facility to be located near the midway point of the corridor

For purposes of the Tier 1 EIS Cost Analysis, a broad list of items was defined and categorized by 

line segment, as summarized in the Cost Analysis Appendix. Cost types such as capital, 

operating, maintenance, etc. were estimated by segments and defined specifically for this cost 

analysis and summed to obtain the total estimate for each corridor alternative. Preliminary

costs for both corridor alternatives are rounded to the nearest $100,000 for smaller capital 

items (e.g., minor culverts) and the nearest $500,000 for larger capital cost items (e.g., siding 

turnouts). Real estate acquisition costs have been divided into residential, vacant, business, and 

institutional, and further split into urban, suburban, and rural for all categories.

6.1.2 Operating Cost Methodology

At this stage of development, the operating costs assume operation of commuter and intercity 

services based upon the service levels used to forecast ridership.

 Annual operating and maintenance cost estimates are based upon the 2010 National 

Transit Database vehicle mile and train/bus hour costs, inflated by 3 percent per year to

2013. 

 Station operating costs are estimates based on a percentage of the associated total 

capital cost.

6.2 Capital Plan

The capital plan generally sets forth the financing requirements for funding the capital element 

of any project developed as part of a future Tier 2 document. Because funding sources have not 

been identified to advance the study into project development, the capital plan is developed 

according to the level of conceptual engineering performed to date. Once funding sources have 
6 Cost Analysis

Final Tier 1 Environmental Impact Statement 6-4

been identified, a capital cost estimate and plan will be developed for the project-specific Tier 2 

document(s). At that time, the capital plan will identify and rely upon refined and updated

revenue opportunities to maximize and leverage revenues. It will also incorporate review and 

integration of the capital cost estimates and implementation schedules, including the potential 

for phased implementation. (A conceptual phasing plan is presented in the companion Service 

Development Plan [SDP].) The capital plan will document any new assumptions about annual 

and total receipt of federal revenues based on feedback from FRA.

6.2.1 Capital Costs

The capital cost estimates for implementing a passenger rail system within each corridor 

alternative are shown in Table 6-1 and Table 6-2. The capital cost estimates in 2013 U.S. dollars, 

excluding any finance charges, are between $3.8 billion and $4.5 billion for a passenger rail 

system within the Yellow Corridor Alternative and between $6.5 billion and $7.6 billion for a 

passenger rail system within the Orange Corridor Alternative and include the items listed in the 

tables. These figures represent the cost of building a passenger rail system in either of the 

corridor alternatives.

Table 6-1. Estimated Capital Costs for a Rail System within the Yellow Corridor Alternative

ADOT Intercity Corridor Alternative: YELLOW -

UP Alignment 119.8 Route Miles

FTA Major Standard Cost 

Categories

Base Year

Cost w/o

Contingency

(x000)

Base Year

Allocated

Contingency

(x000)

Base Year

Dollars

Total

(x000)

Base Year $

Percentage 

of

Construction

Cost

Base Year $

Percentage of

Total

Cost

10 Guideway & Track Elements $1,466,063 $111,935 $1,577,997 55% 35%

20 Stations, Stops, Terminals, 

Intermodal

$38,333 $63,963 $102,296 4% 2%

30 Support Facilities: Yards, Shops, 

Admin. Buildings

$148,000 $63,963 $211,963 7% 5%

40 Sitework & Special Conditions $449,471 $95,944 $545,415 19% 12%

50 Systems $356,060 $79,953 $436,013 15% 10%

Construction Subtotal (10 - 50) $2,457,927 $415,758 $2,873,685 100%

60 ROW, Land, Existing Improvements $120,760 $127,926 $248,686 6%

70 Vehicles $368,000 $95,944 $463,944 10%

80 Professional Services $251,450 $251,450 6%

Subtotal (10 - 80) $3,198,138 $639,628 $3,837,765

90 Unallocated Contingency $639,628 14%

Total (10 - 90) $4,477,393 100%
6 Cost Analysis

Final Tier 1 Environmental Impact Statement 6-5

6.2.2 Funding Sources

Currently no funding sources are identified for the construction and operation of a passenger 

rail system. Depending on the final governance structure for passenger rail in Arizona, revenue 

could come from various sources. For example, a commuter rail system within urbanized areas 

between Tucson and Phoenix metropolitan areas could request Section 5309 New Starts federal 

grants or local funding from regional and state agencies or from private interests. Intercity 

service will compete for different sources of funding at the state or federal levels. In either 

case, substantial funding will need to be generated within Arizona to seek matching federal 

dollars. Various such programs are being discussed such as FRA’s High Speed Intercity 

Passenger Rail Program (or a follow-on program), but none is well enough defined to be 

considered viable yet. A detailed financial plan will be developed as the study advances to the 

development phase and a Tier 2 analysis is prepared.

Table 6-2. Estimated Capital Costs for a Rail System within the Orange Corridor Alternative

ADOT Intercity Corridor Alternative: ORANGE -

I-10 / N-S / US 60 / 101L 128.5 Route Miles

FTA Major Standard Cost 

Categories

Base Year

Cost w/o

Contingency

(x000)

Base Year

Allocated

Contingency

(x000)

Base Year

Dollars

Total

(x000)

Base Year $

Percentage 

of

Construction

Cost

Base Year $

Percentage of

Total

Cost

10 Guideway & Track Elements $3,291,156 $297,301 $3,588,456 67% 47%

20 Stations, Stops, Terminals, 

Intermodal $70,833 $135,137 $205,970 4% 3%

30 Support Facilities: Yards, Shops, 

Admin. Buildings

$106,000 $108,109 $268,109 5% 4%

40 Sitework & Special Conditions $614,884 $162,164 $777,048 15% 10%

50 Systems $362,710 $135,137 $497,847 9% 7%

Construction Subtotal (10 - 50) $4,445,583 $837,847 $5,337,430 100%

60 ROW, Land, Existing Improvements $51,620 $108,109 $159,729 2%

70 Vehicles $400,000 $135,137 $535,137 7%

80 Professional Services $454,262 $454,262 6%

Subtotal (10 - 80) $5,405,466 $1,081,093 $6,486,559

90 Unallocated Contingency $1,081,093 14%

Total (10 - 90) $7,567,652 100%

6.3 Operating and Maintenance Plan

Operating costs cover the maintenance and operations costs of running a passenger rail system 

within the corridor alternatives. The elements of this cost assessment include a high-level 

estimate of train operations, station operations, and the needs of the maintenance and storage 

facility that supports the passenger services. 
6 Cost Analysis

Final Tier 1 Environmental Impact Statement 6-6

Operating and maintenance cost estimates were prepared for each corridor alternative based 

on separate costs for intercity and commuter rail. Table 6-3 lists the existing systems 

referenced as part of the cost calculations. Operating and maintenance cost estimates also 

included total costs for maintenance staff, equipment, and facilities using travel forecasts. 

Table 6-3. Operating Costs for Existing Transit Agencies Using Commuter Rail Service

Existing Rail Transit Systems Location

Annual 

Operating 8

Cost

Fixed 

Guidewaya

Directional 

Route 

Miles

Average 

Operating 

Cost/ Route 

Mile

Dallas Area Rapid Transit Dallas – Fort Worth –

Arlington, TX $25,873,787 72.3 $357,867

Peninsula Corridor Joint Powers Board 

(Caltrain)

San Francisco –

Oakland, CA $97,555,152 153.7 $634,711

Massachusetts Bay Transportation 

Authority

Boston and surrounding 

areas, MA $322,088,557 776.1 $415,009

Metro Transit Minneapolis – St. Paul, 

MN $16,419,740 77.9 $210,780

Tri-Met Portland (Westside 

Express), OR $6,486,920 29.2 $222,155

Tennessee Department of Transportation Nashville, TN $3,939,586 62.8 $62,732

Capital Metropolitan Transportation 

Authority Austin, TX $11,358,085 64.2 $176,917

Rio Metro Regional Transit District Albuquerque, NM $24,226,678 193.1 $125,462

Southern California Regional Rail Authority 

(Metrolink)

Los Angeles – Anaheim –

Long Beach, CA $171,572,964 777.8 $220,588

Central Puget Sound Regional Transit 

Authority Seattle, WA $36,762,712 163.8 $224,437

South Florida Regional Transportation 

Authority Miami, FL $55,588,137 142.2 $390,915

Utah Transit Authority Salt Lake City – West 

Valley City, UT $20,041,804 174.5 $114,853

Maryland Transit Administration Washington DC $97,050,916 400.4 $242,385

Virginia Railway Express (VRE) Washington DC $61,552,829 161.5 $381,132

MTA Long Island Rail Road New York – Newark, NY $1,163,468,650 638.2 $1,823,047

NE Illinois Regional Commuter Railroad 

Corp. Chicago, IL $627,591,444 980.4 $640,138

Metro North Commuter Railroad Company New York – Newark, NY $940,674,081 545.7 $1,723,793

New Jersey Transit Corporation New York – Newark, NY $869,846,760 1,001.8 $868,284

Southern Pennsylvania Transportation 

Authority Philadelphia, PA $255,004,244 446.9 $570,607

Shaded rows indicate rail systems that include both 

electric multiple unit (EMU) and diesel multiple unit 

(DMU)rail power

Average (includes EMU/

DMU transit systems) $495,043

Note:

Average (includes only

DMU transit systems) $269,996

aNational Transit 2012 Database Transit Agency 

Profiles 2013 Value $278,096
6 Cost Analysis

Final Tier 1 Environmental Impact Statement 6-7

Operating and maintenance cost calculations were based on the actual costs of existing rail 

operations throughout the country with similar characteristics to those planned within each 

corridor for this passenger rail system. The operating and maintenance cost analysis for a 

passenger rail system within the Yellow Corridor Alternative and Orange Corridor Alternative 

are shown in Table 6-4. 

Table 6-4. Comparative Estimated Annual Operating and Maintenance Costs by Corridor 

Alternative and Service Type

Yellow Corridor Alternative Orange Corridor Alternative

Service Type Intercity Commuter Intercity Commuter

Trip Length (miles) 119.8 119.8 128.5 128.5

One Way Trip Time, 

NB/SBa(minutes) 83/82 95/96 83/85 98/99

Number of Carsb 8 4 8 5

Fleet Sizec 5 13 4 15

One-Way Trips 

per Weekday 16 56 16 56

Weekday Miles 1,916.8 6,708.8 2,056 7,196

Annual Revenue 

Milesd

498,368 1,744,288 534,560 1,870,960

Unit Cost e-g

(Operating Expense 

per Vehicle Mile)

$29.79 $29.79 $35.75h $35.75h

Estimated O&Mi Cost $14,846,383 $51,962,340 $19,110,520 $66,886,820

Total Estimated 

Annual O&M Cost $66,808,722 $85,997,340

Average Operating 

Cost/ Route Mile $123,926 $433,742 $148,720 $520,520

Notes:

aNB/SB= Northbound Trip / Southbound Trip

b Based on diesel multiple unit (DMU) train

c Includes 1 spare train for each rail service

d Weekdays only service assumes 260 operating days per year

e Operating Expenses per Vehicle Revenue Mile are in 2013 U.S. Dollars

f Operating Expense per Vehicle Revenue Mile from 2012 National Transit Database plus 3% inflation per year to 2013

g Operating Expenses per Vehicle Revenue Mile is based on the average value of 14 existing transit systems across the U.S. that 

have similar operations

h Operating Expenses per Vehicle Mile average cost inflated by 50% to take into account higher operating speed and structures 

estimated for this rail system

I O&M=Operating and Maintenance
6 Cost Analysis

Final Tier 1 Environmental Impact Statement 6-8

As shown above, the estimated operating and maintenance costs are based on trip length, 

travel times, route miles, and fleet size for intercity and commuter service for each corridor 

alternative. The total estimated annual operating and maintenance cost estimates (based on

2013 U.S. dollars) are approximately $66.8 million for a passenger rail system within the Yellow 

Corridor Alternative, and $86 million for a passenger rail system within the Orange Corridor 

Alternative.

6.4 Cash Flow Plans

A cash flow analysis will be developed during project development and when funding 

mechanisms with annual sources and uses of funds are defined. The cash flow plans will 

depend on the type of funding used to pay for construction and operations. Options include 

pay-as-you-go approach or debt financing construction or a combination of the two 

approaches. The selected approach could have differing effects on the timing of impacts (e.g., 

acquisition of adjacent properties or construction) and on the financial management of the 

program. These concepts will be further developed during preparation of the Tier 2 

environmental analysis.

6.5 Financial Risks and Uncertainties

The greatest financial risk to developing a passenger rail system within either corridor 

alternative is the potential inability to secure funding for construction, operation, and 

maintenance. Other financial risks could include issues affecting or delaying property 

acquisition and the cost of property acquisition, the volatility of material costs, and their effect 

on the overall cost estimate. The total cost estimate is also affected by the way funds are 

allocated for a multi-modal project such as passenger rail corridor shared with a highway 

corridor, as could be the case if the passenger rail parallels the North-South Corridor.